Looks like the man who many blame for for Al Gore's loss in the 2000 election may be gearing up for another run at the presidency.

He has formed a presidential exploritory commitee and may make a decision by January.

Of course if he runs, again on the Green Party ticket (Socialist) he will again split the left wing of the Democratic party and this may have some serious consequences if Dean in the nominee since that is who he is pandering his campaign to.

If voters actually don't see that their vote for Nader is useless it is really their problem (I guess even an improbability drive as in the starship Heart of Gold would not help him win the election). It was just as well foreseeable in 2000 that such behaviour could actually cost Gore the presidency (and it most certainly did). As a matter of fact I had the opportunity to watch my unfortunately communist roommate to make her vote for Gore (she lived in Germany at that time) despite her being a strong supporter of Nader. I, for one, always give my vote strategically and not necessarily based on what my favorite party/candidate is.

It doesn't matter...if Nader runs then Bush should invite him to the inauguration. For the record, as I recall, a number of conservative republicans blamed Perot for getting Bill Clinton elected. I guess what goes around comes around. I'm not particularly fond of any candidate or potential candidate, but all Nader's going to do is cost the democrats the election.

I don't necessarily think that Nader will have as big of an impact as he did in '00. The Democrats will cost themselves the election, by being insane enough to nominate a loose-cannon leftist like Howard Dean. The differences between Nader and Dean are not too great, and parts of their proposed policies are exactly the same. Sure, you'll have your average numbskull, idealist college student giving their vote to the Watermelon party (green on the outside, red on the inside), but it won't make a huge difference.

I agree with your first sentence, Jcs. Two-time independents don't usually make a difference the 2nd time around. As for Dean, I still don't think he'll win the nomination, but he's run the smartest campaign, fund-raising wise, of any candidate, and raising funds is half the battle.

Actually, Jcs, Dean, in supporting the 2nd Amendment, differentiates himself from most Democrats in that category. As for your statement about the Green Party, I think you're a tad off base, but I guess red-bating dies hard with conservatives.

I never thought I would say this. Thank you Ralph Nader. From the bottom of my heart; me, the GOP and Americans against planes flying into buildings thanks you for keeping this country safe from another democrat president.

I never thought I would say this. Thank you Ralph Nader. From the bottom of my heart; me, the GOP and Americans against planes flying into buildings thanks you for keeping this country safe from another democrat president.

It's sort of a "six degrees of separation" that the Bush supporters use to justify the attack on Iraq. See, Osama bin Laden was behind the WTC attacks, and the hijackers were Arab. Saddam Hussein is also an Arab, therefore he was responsible for the attacks.

- Favored large factory farms in VT to allow for profitability for VT's farmers.
- Says gun control should be a state, not a federal domain.
- Not categorically opposed to war. Direct quote: "I don't think you should run for President unless you're willing to use the military might of the United States to defend ourselves. But I don't think that the President ever made a case that Iraq was a particular danger to the United States." As true as it gets.
- Balanced successive budgets in VT.
- kept down spending in VT.
- opposed raising taxes in VT and fought back the state legislatures attempts to increase the state income tax.
- Created enormous tax breaks to successfully attract businesses to Vermont.

Health Care: Vermont now provides coverage to more people than almost any other state, thanks largely to Dean's efforts. This was the lowest rate in the country. First in the country to offer prescription drug benefits to Seniors. All without raising taxes or creating deficits !!

Actually, the capture of Saddam could be beginning of the end for Dean. Many Democrats who were on the fence about the Iraq war, or bashing Bush's "exit strategy" could definitely look towards Gephardt, Kerry, or Edwards now. For the Dems, this could not be better news, with Dean as a nominee they wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell to beat Bush.

thats what i dont like about the u.s. system, you have 40% voting for one, 38% for two, and 15% voting for three, two and three are rather similar on politics yet cant form a coalition to set up the government.
that really dooms the u.s. to have a de facto two party system forever, which isnt exactly good for progress of political culture

zak coalition goverment is not democratic. the minority in a coalition have an unfair advantage as they can change the majority parties view and block new measures by leaving the coalition. They breed instability in the long term.

What is needed is strong democratic goverment. Why should the majority not have their views respected because smaller parties have become involved?

Whilst i despair of the fact that im under a labour goverment im happy to say that id rather have a labour goverment with 177 seat majority than a coalition with the lib dems.

If candidates are generally simliar on policy then it may shock you to find out that they both dont often run and if they do one becomes the running mate. Look at gore and clinton, fairly similiar in outlook or cheney and bush.

all political parties change and envolve, republicians and democrats arent stuck in their ways on all topics for ever.

Because the united states goverment was too stupid and scared to recognise the growing terrorist threat. Bill Clinton could have got bin laden but he didnt. Before Sept 11 Americans wanted their president to focus on their issues, to retreat from the wider world. what sept 11 has done is made america realise it is part of the world and it has got to get involved in global affairs.

If it is going to be anyones fault its the cnn effect, the western world was taught that wars happen far away, have to happen after everything else has been flogged to death(which ends up with more people actually killed than a quick war) and have to happen with the bare min of civilian deaths and troop deaths.

There is no way on earth a democrat or repubilican president could have bombed afghanistan before sept 11 in the manner that it did.

Actually, the capture of Saddam could be beginning of the end for Dean. Many Democrats who were on the fence about the Iraq war, or bashing Bush's "exit strategy" could definitely look towards Gephardt, Kerry, or Edwards now.

Yep...they got Saddam. They still haven't found the weapons of mass destruction that were our original reason for bombing the daylights out of Iraq...that is until our primary reason for bombing the daylights out of Iraq was changed to "liberating" the Iraqi people.

This might come as a surprise to you, but many of us were not really on the fence at all when it came to Iraq...we were (and still are) solidly on the "opposing" side of the fence. The trouble is - as a realist - we can't get out of Iraq (Gooooood Morning Vietnam of the new millenium). So we're there for a lot longer than this administration thinks we will be. And a new administration would be foolish to yank all our troops home - a move like that would just turn even more of the world against us.

"Before Sept 11 Americans wanted their president to focus on their issues, to retreat from the wider world."

Nice try, but untrue.

The cornerstone of Clinton's foreign policy was international engagement, trade policy as both carrot and stick, and a build-up of NATO. Do you forget the Balkans war?

The Balkans war was an American initiative, an initiative that succeeded after opposition from Europe and the Republican-controlled House. Can you imagine the hue and cry from DeLay and friends if Clinton had deployed troops and the AirForce against Afghanistan?

You cannot really blame 9-11 on Bush. Or Clinton for that matter. Try blaming decades of nurturing the Saudis and their right wing fundamentalist Wahhabi-brand of Islam, molly-coddling of assorted interests in the Middle East, and the creation of the notorious ISI of Pakistan.

if you call firing a 2 million dollar cruise missile at a $10 tent and having it go up a camels ass an anti terrorism policy. Look at how we responded to terrorist attacks under Clinton. Can you even call firing a few cruise missiles into the desert for someone trying to sink one of our ships in Yemen a response?